Slave Trade, and at a later period those laws which condemned a large portion of the people to political degradation—he meant the penal laws against Roman Catholics. He contended that the people of this country sought for a change because the state of the country was such as to require it. The rock which the late government had split upon was their defiance of public opinion. They went on spreading wide the canvas of patronage as they proceeded—but that patronage, and the use they made of it, did not accelerate their progress, or increase their power, but proved to be their ruin. Taunts had been thrown out during the debate against those who like himself were great admirers of the late Mr. Canning. They had been taunted for abandoning the principles which that great man had adopted with respect to the important question of reform. He thought that the events that had taken place in that House since the death of that illustrious man might have taught those who had indulged in such taunts that public men might change their opinions on questions of deep national concernment without being influenced by any but honest and honourable motives. If any man took a great and enlarged view of human affairs—without doubt that eminent statesman did—he would venture to say that had Mr. Canning lived in these days, and stood in the same circumstances as he (Lord Palmerston) did, his great genius would at once have comprehended the necessity of the occasion, and would have stated in that House his well-known convictions of the necessity for a reform of the representation of the people. If any hon. member wanted to learn the opinions of Mr. Canning let him refer to his speech delivered in February, 1826, on the freedom of the silk trade, when he said ‘that those who resisted improvements because it was innovation upon old worn systems, might find themselves compelled to accept innovation when it had ceased to be improvement.’ He believed that the proposition would prove satisfactory to the country; he believed that there did not exist in any country in the world a body of men more entitled to respect and confidence than the middle classes of this country. He would venture to say that there was not a class of men more distinguished for morality and good conduct; for intelligence and love of order; for true loyalty to the king; for affection for the constitution; and in case of need for devotion to the country. To the manufacturing towns it was intended to give thirty-four members, and to preserve the just preponderance of the landed interest, it was proposed to add fifty-five new members to the counties. He would add that it was not talents under the present system that procured a man a seat in that House, but length of purse, the ability to pay agents and post-horses up to the fourteenth day. This was a great and practical evil, and this evil the Bill would do away with, for it would alter the distribution of the different classes, and bring the middle classes into communion with others.”

Sir Robert Peel. “He begged his noble friend to believe that he did not join in the taunts against him. He never could think that public men did not look to higher motives than a desire to retain their places when they were induced to change their opinions, and the character, the views, and the conduct of his noble friend afforded a sufficient guarantee for the purity of his motives. In his anxiety to find cause for blaming the administration which had preceded the last, his noble friend had said, that if in 1828 that Government had consented to transfer the elective franchise from the rotten borough of East Retford to Birmingham, the House would not now be discussing the necessity for a general reform, for that single measure would have quieted the apprehensions of the people. But, if from such small events such mighty results would spring, it was incumbent upon the House to enquire what was the paramount considerations under those circumstances which now rendered it imperative to change the constitution of the country. Why did they not consent to the disfranchisement of East Retford? His noble friend had lamented that the voice of Mr. Canning could not now be heard in that House, and had assumed that his voice would have been raised in favour of this Reform Bill. God grant that voice might now be raised in that House, convinced as he was, that it would be raised to confound the fallacies and sophistries by which the public mind was deceived. He regretted that the name of the King should be obtruded upon the house day by day; and he could not dismiss from his mind doubts and fears as to the justice and expediency of this extreme measure of disfranchisement; but, granting that they did not exist, still it was a harsh measure towards the loyal bodies who were called upon to sacrifice privileges which they had long exercised; and even if it was justly introduced, why should the King be held out as the special author of the plan. Then, the House was threatened with a dissolution; in his opinion the chances of a dissolution were as strong if the measure were carried as if it failed. They did not think that if they rejected that bill it implied an aversion to all measures of reform! Upon the same principle those gentlemen rejected the ballot, and why was he not at liberty to discuss this bill? He had never been the person to excite the people to a pitch of frenzy, to spur their lazy indifference into an emulation of revolutionary clamour. If, therefore, this measure which common prudence would have forborne introducing at such a crisis in our foreign and domestic relations, when fresh causes of excitement ought to be very cautiously avoided; if, he said, this extraordinary measure should be defeated he would never allow that the responsibility of the disappointment could attach to him, or those honourable members who acted with him in that House. Some disparagement had been made upon the middle classes, but he did not participate in that sentiment; on the contrary, he should ever repudiate it from his heart, for he (personally) desired his strength from that order of society; he was one of themselves, and should always be proud of his connexion with the middle classes of this country. He had heard frequent allusions to Burke and Canning, and other authorities whose opinions had been advanced in the course of the debate, but he would quote a passage from a speech of the noble member for Tavistock (Lord John Russell), in the session of 1819, which he considered much more to the purpose, and was, besides being apposite to the question, one of the most beautiful specimens of eloquence ever uttered in that house. The discussion related to the disfranchisement of a corrupt borough in Cornwall. When asked what he would do with the unconvicted boroughs, he replied that he would consider a general disfranchisement of the unconvicted boroughs a reconstruction of the House of Commons altogether. He has therefore the noble lord’s own authority for so designating the present plan of reform. He then observed that ‘Old Sarum’ had existed when Montesquieu pronounced the constitution of England the nearest to perfection of any which the most enlightened States had ever before experienced. When Lord Somers, and the other great legislators who flourished with him, bore attestation to its merits, it was open to the same objections which have since been urged against it, and when Hampden lost his life Rutland returned the same number of members as Yorkshire. Such was the noble lord’s judicious, and at the present moment timely, warning against the danger of rashly departing from the practical wisdom of mankind during the centuries of historic experience, proffered at the critical junction of 1819. With respect to the question before the House, he could not but declare that he saw in it but the instrument of men endeavouring to retain power. It was the inevitable tendency